Faculty Bibliography

The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of drug exposure patterns of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on the clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Previous analyses predominantly included discharge medications and did not explore the effect of the drug exposure patterns. We analyzed all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in a cohort of 23,200 post-PCI patients (January 2003 to December 2008) using a multivariate adjusted Cox model and propensity-matched case-control analysis. The adjusted hazard ratio for MACE on PPI according to the exposure patterns of clopidogrel after PCI for 6 years was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11 to 1.38) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22) for "continuous" (consistent clopidogrel with or without PPIs) and "switched" (clopidogrel with or without varying PPIs) respectively. However, the propensity score adjusted odds ratios for MACE on PPI use was 0.97 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.44) for "continuous" and 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.25) for "switched." Moreover, in the first year after PCI, the use of "rescue" (≤30 days before MACE) nitroglycerin was greater in the patients taking clopidogrel and PPIs than in those taking clopidogrel alone, as was the overall use of rescue PPIs (p <0.001). In conclusion, PPI use in clopidogrel-treated post-PCI patients was not associated with an increased risk of MACE after controlling for the confounding effect of PPI use with propensity matching. A potential for the misdiagnosis of angina symptoms and rescue use of nitroglycerin and PPIs in post-PCI patients exists, a finding that might have confounded previous observational analyses.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study sought to develop a tool for predicting an individual's risk of mortality following rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND:Although fibrinolytic therapy is appropriate and improves survival for certain ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients, a substantial proportion suffer ongoing myocardial ischemia, a class I indication for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (rescue PCI). METHODS:Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), rescue PCI was defined as nonelective PCI following failed fibrinolysis in patients with continuing or recurrent myocardial ischemia. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine mortality predictors and the C-statistic for model discrimination. The NCDR-RESCUE (Real-World Estimator of Survival in Catheterized STEMI Patients Following Unsuccessful Earlier Fibrinolysis) score was developed using a shortened list of 6 pre-angiographic variables and 70% of the cohort; performance was subsequently validated against the remaining 30%. RESULTS:Among 166,516 PCI procedures on patients with an admission diagnosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 8,007 (4.8%) represented rescue PCI. In-hospital mortality occurred in 464 (5.8%). Factors in the final model were age, glomerular filtration rate, history of congestive heart failure, insulin-treated diabetes, cardiogenic shock, and salvage status. The NCDR-RESCUE score effectively segregated individuals into 6 clinically meaningful risk categories, with 0.4% (0.0% to 1.3%), 1.6% (0.9% to 2.4%), 7.6% (5.3% to10.4%), 27.5% (20.7% to 35.1%), 64.2% (49.8% to 76.9%), or 100% (59.0% to 100.0%) risk, respectively, of in-hospital mortality (mean ± 95% confidence interval, C-index = 0.88, Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.898). CONCLUSIONS:In-hospital mortality risk among individuals undergoing rescue PCI varies from minimal to extreme and can be easily calculated using the NCDR-RESCUE score. This information can be of value in counseling patients, families, and referring caregivers.

BACKGROUND:Major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with an increased risk of subsequent mortality and recurrent ischemic events. Observational data and small randomized trials suggest that radial instead of femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention results in fewer bleeding complications, with preserved and possibly improved efficacy. Radial access versus femoral access has yet to be formally evaluated in a randomized trial adequately powered for the comparison of clinically important outcomes. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention in patients with ACS managed with an invasive strategy. DESIGN/METHODS:This was a multicenter international randomized trial with blinded assessment of outcomes. 7021 patients with ACS (with or without ST elevation) have been randomized to either radial or femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention. The primary outcome is the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. The key secondary outcomes are (1) death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to day 30 and (2) non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates will also be compared between the two access sites. CONCLUSIONS:The RIVAL trial will help define the optimal access site for coronary angiography/intervention in patients with ACS.

OPINION STATEMENT/UNASSIGNED:Currently available data suggest that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting who do not continue oral anticoagulation are at increased risk for mortality and morbidity. In this patient population, therapy directed at reducing both thromboembolism (via oral anticoagulation) and stent thrombosis (via dual antiplatelet therapy) is necessary but is associated with an increased risk for bleeding. For patients with a high risk for thromboembolism based on published AF risk scores, the use of bare metal stents is recommended to minimize the duration of triple therapy. During the time period when triple therapy is used, the International Normalized Ratio (INR) should be maintained at the lower end of therapeutic range (2.0), and lower dose aspirin should be used. Finally, as newer oral anticoagulation agents such as dabigatran and rivaroxaban become available, further research will be required to determine their safety and efficacy in patients with AF undergoing PCI with stenting.

BACKGROUND:Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces vascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronary angiography with possible intervention. METHODS:The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries. 3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in 128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·72-1·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecified subgroups, there was a significant interaction for the primary outcome with benefit for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28-0·87; p=0·015) and in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (0·60, 0·38-0·94; p=0·026). The rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days was 112 (3·2%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 114 (3·2%) of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·76-1·28; p=0·90). The rate of non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days was 24 (0·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 33 (0·9%) of 3514 patients in the femoral group (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·43-1·23; p=0·23). At 30 days, 42 of 3507 patients in the radial group had large haematoma compared with 106 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·40, 95% CI 0·28-0·57; p<0·0001). Pseudoaneurysm needing closure occurred in seven of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 23 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·30, 95% CI 0·13-0·71; p=0·006). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Radial and femoral approaches are both safe and effective for PCI. However, the lower rate of local vascular complications may be a reason to use the radial approach. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:Sanofi-Aventis, Population Health Research Institute, and Canadian Network for Trials Internationally (CANNeCTIN), an initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Bleeding complications after coronary intervention are associated with prolonged hospitalization, increased hospital costs, patient dissatisfaction, morbidity, and 1-year mortality. Bleeding avoidance strategies is a term incorporating multiple modalities that aim to reduce bleeding and vascular complications after cardiovascular catheterization. Recent improvements in the rates of bleeding complications after invasive cardiovascular procedures suggest that the clinical community has successfully embraced specific strategies and improved patient care in this area. There remains controversy regarding the efficacy, safety, and/or practicality of 3 key bleeding avoidance strategies for cardiac catheterization and coronary intervention: procedural (radial artery approach, safezone arteriotomy), pharmacological (multiple agents), and technological (vascular closure devices) approaches to improved access. In this paper, we address areas of consensus with respect to selected modalities in order to define the role of each strategy in current practice. Furthermore, we focus on areas of controversy for selected modalities in order to define key areas warranting cautious clinical approaches and the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area.

Bleeding has recently emerged as an important outcome in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), which is relatively frequent compared with ischaemic outcomes and has important implications in terms of prognosis, outcomes, and costs. In particular, there is evidence that patients experiencing major bleeding in the acute phase are at higher risk for death in the following months, although the causal nature of this relation is still debated. This position paper aims to summarize current knowledge regarding the epidemiology of bleeding in ACS and percutaneous coronary intervention, including measurement and definitions of bleeding, with emphasis on the recent consensus Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definitions. It also provides an European perspective on management strategies to minimize the rate, extent, and consequences of bleeding. Finally, the research implications of bleeding (measuring and reporting bleeding in trials, the importance of bleeding as an outcome measure, and bleeding as a subject for future research) are also discussed.